MAACK v. WYCKOFF HEIGHTS MEDICAL CENTER (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Dorota Von Maack (“Von Maack”), proceeding pro se, brought this action against Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, raising claims under state and federal law, and seeking to vacate an arbitration award. The District Court dismissed the initial complaint and motion to vacate, and then later dismissed the amended complaint as well. The District Court reasoned that the majority of Von Maack’s federal claims were time-barred and did not merit equitable tolling, and that her remaining claims failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Von Maack now appeals, arguing that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard, failed to liberally construe the facts she alleged, and that, in ruling against her, the District judge participated in a conspiracy to deprive her of civil rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all factual claims in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740–41 (2d Cir. 2013). A district court’s decision upholding or vacating an arbitration award is reviewed “de novo on questions of law and for clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Wackenhut Corp. v. Amalgamated Local 515, 126 F.3d 29, 31 (2d Cir. 1997).

We conclude that the District Court properly denied the motion to vacate and dismissed the complaint and amended complaint. We affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the District Court in its June 21, 2016, and September 11, 2017, opinions and orders.¹

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Von Maack on appeal and find them to be without merit. The September 11, 2017 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Von Maack contends for the first time on appeal that the District judge was biased and joined in a conspiracy to violate her civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 by ruling against her. Von Maack bases these allegations solely on the judge’s ethnic identity and the District Court’s dismissal of her claims. Because these claims are raised for the first time on appeal, they will not be considered. See Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016); Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”).